Gear & Gadgets —

The smallest and best new Android phones you can buy aren’t small at all

You can have any kind of flagship phone, so long as it's 4.7 inches or larger.

Book of Screen Size Design Paradigms: "Four shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be four. Five shalt thou not count, neither count thou three, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Eight is right out."

You don’t have to look too hard at the slate of new smartphones to see Android’s “bigger is better” ethos. While iPhones have remained resolutely conservatively sized, Android manufacturers continue to push the limits with phones like the 5.5-inch LG Optimus G Pro or the 6.3-inch Samsung Galaxy Mega.

Consumer choice is all well and good, but looking further at the range of available phones, it’s actually impossible to get any of the latest models and also get a phone that’s smaller than 4.7 inches. They just don’t exist anymore.

Of the recent releases on Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint (phones that cost at least $150, like the Samsung Galaxy S 4 or HTC One), all have 4.7-inch screens or larger. The two premium phones on T-Mobile are 5 inches and larger.

If you do want a smaller phone, you have to drop down to lower-priced phones in lesser quality brackets. On Verizon, there’s the old 4-inch Motorola Droid 4 for $100 or the 3.6-inch Casio G’zOne Commando for $50. On AT&T, there’s the 4-inch Samsung Galaxy Rugby Pro for $100. Sprint offers the 4-inch Kyocera Torque for $100, the 3.1-inch Motorola Admiral for $70, or the 3.5-inch ZTE Fury for free on contract.

The divide is pretty clear among Android phones: new models have large, shiny, nearly 5-inch screens; it’s only old or inexpensive phones that still have smaller screens.

There are some newer phones that do have sub-5-inch screens, fitting the “mini” trend. But these phones also have diminished internals. If you want the latest and best inside, a large outside is unavoidable.

Why size matters

To begin with, the “right” phone size for a user has almost as much to do with personal preference as comfort. There are trade-offs to both options: a screen 5 inches or larger is better for browsing and can display more content at once, but a screen smaller than 4.7 inches, and especially smaller than 4.3 inches, is easier to operate with one hand. The smaller your hands are, the more you’d be affected by the comfort trade-off in a one-handed scenario.

A very small-scale study presented at the end of July at the 15th Human Interface and the Management of Information conference in Las Vegas showed that screen size also has a practical implication: operating time. The study examined five people using 10 different phones with screen sizes ranging from 2.55 inches (Sony Xperia 10 mini) to 5.3 inches (a Galaxy Note). A basic app required participants to touch various parts of the screen in different patterns.

Ming Chi University of Technology, Department of Industrial Design and Department of Industrial Engineering and Management

The experiment found that there is a jump in the time it takes to complete tasks when the screen increases in size from 4.3 to 4.7 inches, between a third and half a second. The operating time for the simple tasks nearly doubled in the jump from 4.3 to 5.3 inches, from between 3 and 3.5 seconds to between 6 and 6.5 seconds.

Hence, two advantages arise in favor of the smaller screen: operating time and holding comfort (though the two are related). And yet Android manufacturers are catering less and less to those advantages on the high-end of smartphones in favor of more size.

Certainly for people with bigger hands, a larger phone may decrease operating time (due to fewer mistakes) and may be more comfortable. But the handful of testers in the study above all had hands falling around the average hand length for males (18.9 cm) or larger, meaning that even for males with average or slightly above average hands, phones bigger than 4.5 inches are more of a pain to use than smaller ones. On a personal note, I have large hands for a woman (17.8 cm, to the 17.2 cm average), and I find 4-plus-inch phones to be too big in terms of one-handed operation.

Where have all the small phones gone?

Granted, this is only an inch we’re talking about, an inch that is a first world problem in the extreme. But given how central smartphones are to our lives now, it’s a pretty integral difference. It’s like if we wore pants that are 25 percent too long, or ate 25 percent more food than we wanted at every meal, or paid 25 percent more every time we bought something. It’s not much, but the frequency of interaction is enough that the effects add up.

Android handset manufacturers can’t actually be focused in a practical way on capturing the very-large-handed dude demographic. We know larger phones are marginally easier to read on, but why are there no high-end phones for those of us who have normal appendages and would rather have the operational tradeoff? Maybe the fact that women, who fill out more of the small-hands demographic, stereotypically don’t know or care about having powerful phones.

Manufacturers could possibly make the case that customers want to see more, bigger content on their phones, which is a valid argument. But a smartphone isn’t the passive, basic-interaction device that, say, an e-reader is. We are texting, we are e-mailing, we are searching, we are playing games, we are picking, pinching, and dragging. This is hard when I can't reach with my thumb that button in the screen’s corner over there, a long and empty stretch of pixels away.

The Android platform used to beat the drum of consumer choice loud and often, but only a few short years after the platform’s launch, phones have settled along a line in a two-dimensional spectrum: huge, expensive, and unwieldy, or small, inexpensive, and mediocre.

Promoted Comments

It's because small, powerful, and long-lasting battery life is significantly harder to do.

It takes a lot less effort to hide a faster/hotter processor and bigger battery behind a big screen. The cut-down specs in the smaller versions of the flagship phones seems to bear this out.

(I reckon one reason that Apple manages decent battery life in a tiny package is because they're more likely to optimize their software for power savings than most Android manufacturers who are likely to just throw larger batteries at the problem.)

This is one of the reasons I'm likely to switch back to an iPhone after the contract is up on my Galaxy S3. I simply cannot comfortably operate the S3 with just one hand. I can sort of get by if I stretch a bit and move the phone around a bit in my hand, but it's a total pain in the butt and it slows me down. That and there are some other little niggling user interface things which continue to suck in Android (or at least on my S3) for no explicable reason, which I use all the time and thus find frustrating because I'm always clicking awkwardly a couple extra times with my stretched-out thumb.

I certainly don't mean for this to be an apple-vs-android or whatever...I just really miss having a form factor that I can use comfortably, and apparently I am out of choices if I want to continue using a smartphone.

The Android platform used to beat the drum of consumer choice loud and often, but only a few short years after the platform’s launch, phones have settled along a two-dimensional spectrum: huge, expensive, and unwieldy, or small, inexpensive, and mediocre.

It's worse than that. Try finding a phone in which you'll get at least 2 updates during the life of your contract and you will be down to one brand - the nexus.

So for all the choice of the Android ecosystem, you can have:

(1) screen size less than 4.3 inches(2) high spec(3) at least two software updates in its life time

but the Nexus only gives you 2+3 and nothing gives you 1+2, 1+3 or 1+2+3.

I wish they would stop making them thinner and thinner. I don't think than anyone would really have an issue with most of the phones coming out if they were a couple mm thicker, especially if that came with a proportionate increase in battery life.

1393 posts | registered Jun 15, 2005

Casey Johnston
Casey Johnston is the former Culture Editor at Ars Technica, and now does the occasional freelance story. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Applied Physics. Twitter@caseyjohnston

It seems clear to me that big screens have been an arms race for the various Android manufacturers, and it has just sucked all of the air out of the room, so the only small screens they offer are basically just old phones that they plan to discontinue support on in the near future.

Even Apple isn't immune, with the big feature of the iPhone 5 being a larger screen.

Portability and long term ergonomics are difficult to evaluate in the phone store, especially when the phones are glued to their little pedestals. On the other hand, bigger screens are apparent and obvious. It's no surprise that consumers gravitate towards the pocket monsters.

As a person who is often on the wrong end of what the market is moving to (I'm a died in the wool manual transmission guy drowning in a sea of automatics) I feel sorry for people who want a smaller, powerful phone (but don't want an iPhone). It's kind of a bummer.

That said, I am personally excited about the bigger screens. They suit my oversized hands and declining eyesight so much better. But that is, of course, my experience. Hopefully a full range of sizes will be available soon.

It is curious that no vendor - especially Samsung, who else seem to be trying to make consumer device imaginable - is selling a 4" high end spec'ed system.

In the same vein it's curious that Apple hasn't been offering a second, larger iPhone. Android is now 75% of all new phones and a big number of that is large screened devices. I've also heard countless times how people are ruling out the iPhone simply because it lacks screen estate.

Was there some sort of agreement between Apple and the Android gang? "You get everything north of 4 inches and we're good!"

+1 to this article. I'll be in the market for a new phone soon and am bewildered at the lack of flagship performance models with screens at my desired screen size of around 4 inches. It's really like the days when shopping compact cars meant you were getting no-frills, no-fun cheapness.

I remember seeing ads for phones this large with a child's hand holding it... and the closer you inspect the proportions of everything, the more obvious it becomes that the child's hand has been shooped into some freakish, Mantis-like appendage.

Amen to that. My Nexus 4 is just a bit too large for my hands to be comfortable with one-handed operation. If I could I would instantly chose a 4.3" screen, but alas as has been said nobody wants to offer such a thing.

I think the trend towards larger phones is more about finding room for the massive processors and half a dozen radios they're sticking in these phones as opposed to "catering to people with big hands". The manufacturers are putting bigger phones out because more people will buy the phone with an octa-core processor, 16 core graphics chip, NFC, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, FM radio, GPS, GLONASS, and support for every cellular band used anywhere in the world than the small phone that drops some of those things.

I think the trend towards larger phones is more about finding room for the massive processors and half a dozen radios they're sticking in these phones as opposed to "catering to people with big hands". The manufacturers are putting bigger phones out because more people will buy the phone with an octa-core processor, 16 core graphics chip, NFC, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, FM radio, GPS, GLONASS, and support for every cellular band used anywhere in the world than the small phone that drops some of those things.

I guess that makes some sense, from an engineering standpoint you don't have to work so hard to cram everything in a tiny space in a big phone. I would imagine the perception of the weight goes down too, so they don't have to shave every little milligram off. That would somewhat explain why they don't make many smaller ones, it's not just a question of a smaller screen, it's a question of making everything else still fit.

I think the trend towards larger phones is more about finding room for the massive processors and half a dozen radios they're sticking in these phones as opposed to "catering to people with big hands". The manufacturers are putting bigger phones out because more people will buy the phone with an octa-core processor, 16 core graphics chip, NFC, Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, FM radio, GPS, GLONASS, and support for every cellular band used anywhere in the world than the small phone that drops some of those things.

Not just that. People want to do far more today with their "phones" than they did before. That means people actually want tablets not phones.

It's because small, powerful, and long-lasting battery life is significantly harder to do.

It takes a lot less effort to hide a faster/hotter processor and bigger battery behind a big screen. The cut-down specs in the smaller versions of the flagship phones seems to bear this out.

(I reckon one reason that Apple manages decent battery life in a tiny package is because they're more likely to optimize their software for power savings than most Android manufacturers who are likely to just throw larger batteries at the problem.)

I resisted the large screen for a long time, largely because I dislike having full pockets, but eventually succumbed to the lure of the Nexus 4. I discovered my previous phone - a Sony Ericsson X10 - under a pile of socks the other day and couldn't believe how small it was. The thing I find is that when you upgrade to a larger screen, it's difficult to go back. I think your brain and senses and fingers adjust to having an easier time of things. So I find it difficult to imagine downsizing now, even though I never thought the X10 was too small until I'd supped from the 4.7 inch cup. Of course, as this astute article suggests, I might be less loathe to return to a small screen if the X10 hadn't been a bit crap in comparison to the larger alternatives.

The Android platform used to beat the drum of consumer choice loud and often, but only a few short years after the platform’s launch, phones have settled along a two-dimensional spectrum: huge, expensive, and unwieldy, or small, inexpensive, and mediocre.

I can think of plenty of times I only have one hand free. Eating while I am using my phone. Holding my youngest in my arm(s) while I need to use my phone, cooking sometimes, operating two devices at once (phone and tablet, phone and laptop, phone and desktop), brushing teeth, picking my nose, plenty of times.

This is actually part of the reason I love my iPhone 5. I am not huge on my iPad 2...but I do really love my iPhone. I actually do wish the screen was just a tiny bit bigger...but I wish for a TINY bit. Like 4.2 or 4.3". Bigger than that would be too cumbersome. I have the opposite problem with my iPad...it is too big for how I use it most of the time.

If there is some nice Windows 8.1 hardware with the new Bayview processors for sub-$500 early next spring I might stick with a ~10" tablet again...but otherwise I'll probably go smaller and get whatever the next iPad Mini is (supposing the price doesn't inflate too much with the new model).

Smaller can often be better.

A couple of other users did mention, what I think, is one of the things pushing bigger phones. It isn't just content consumption, it is also more powerful hardware. People want resonable battery lives, but lots of phones are coming with very fast quad core processors, super high res panels, more powerful graphics to pump those high res panels, etc. Slap all of that (granted, smaller backlight probably) in a 4" phone with it's smaller battery and less thermal disipation and you have the issue of the phone running hot(ter) and also possibly going from 7-10hrs of normal use battery life or 3-4hrs of heavy gaming, to 4-6hrs of normal use battery life and 2-3hrs of heavy gaming.

For me, it's not about the height, but about the width. I have both an iPhone 5 and a Samsung Galaxy S4; one is work, and the other is personal.

I far prefer the iPhone over the S4. It's not iOS vs. Android ... both OSs have their good and bad points. It's the width of the S4 that's the problem. It doesn't sit well at all in my hand (portrait orientation), and it's not like I have tiny hands. Both the iPhone 4 and 5 fit nicely. The 5 is bigger, but only in height so it doesn't matter.

It's disappointing because there's a lot to like about the high end Android phones but I hate the size of most of them.

The Android platform used to beat the drum of consumer choice loud and often, but only a few short years after the platform’s launch, phones have settled along a two-dimensional spectrum: huge, expensive, and unwieldy, or small, inexpensive, and mediocre.

And no qwerty sliders!

+1. I find the size race less appalling than the wholesale slaughter of anything but the slab form factor.

Hang in there, Arrive. Maybe they'll learn before you kick the bucket.

I've been shopping for a phone for months now. I ended up buying an iPhone mostly because it was the only phone I could find that wasn't too big for my hands. I wanted the Android/Linux OS, but disliked every phone I came across that ran Android mostly because they were all way too big.

Thank god for Apple's stubborness to not go bonkers with the size of the iPhone.

If you look at reviews, you KNOW why manufacturers keep making bigger phones. For some idiotic reason, reviewers have decided that bigger is better. When I see some monster-size Android phone compared in a review to an iPhone, it's almost always assumed in the language of the review that a bigger screen is an advantage. Given that (and the attitudes of most Android users), why would you expect the phone makers to make a screen size that's smaller. I strongly prefer the iPhone-sized screen, but many people just assume that bigger is better. I just saw a woman in a store talking on some gargantuan-sized phone — and I had to laugh because she looked ridiculous, but that's what reviewers and top Android users seem to want.

a) Big screens are easy to sell in a store. Not many people realize that they are somewhat awkward until after they buy them.

b) Big phones are much easier to engineer. Apple has far and away the highest volume per model -- hence they can do the most engineering per model. There's no way that android handset makers can get a phone down to the dimensions of an iPhone and also maintain the turnover that is standard in the Android world.

All this likely plays into Apple doing worse with first time smartphone buyers.

Screen size is one of the reasons, I can't bring myself to get an android. I really like what they're coming out with HTC One is beautiful as is the S4 rugged. It's just, they don't fit snuggly in my skinny jeans. And there's more that I like about Windows Phone 8, so I know my next upgrade is a Lumia 1020. Physical comfort is just that important to me.

Phones with big, bright screens look more impressive on the sales floor. It's the same reason that TV's in Best Buy always have the brightness and contrast maxed out. It doesn't do much for the image quality, but most people just see something that looks impressive.

Also, as phones are getting thinner, the battery needs somewhere to go. Even though bigger screens suck more battery, overall you're still better off creating a physically larger device and cramming as much battery as possible in there. Just look at the battery life of the Note/Note II.

It seems clear to me that big screens have been an arms race for the various Android manufacturers, and it has just sucked all of the air out of the room, so the only small screens they offer are basically just old phones that they plan to discontinue support on in the near future.

Moto/Verizon are going to have their new Droid Mini in a 4" size at the end of August to replace the older 4" one. I don't think it's going away entirely, but there are certainly limited options.